Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1631 | control, N = 821 | treatment, N = 811 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 161 | 51.00 ± 12.35 (25 - 74) | 50.98 ± 12.24 (25 - 74) | 51.01 ± 12.52 (28 - 73) | 0.985 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 163 | 0.737 | |||
f | 127 (78%) | 63 (77%) | 64 (79%) | ||
m | 36 (22%) | 19 (23%) | 17 (21%) | ||
occupation | 163 | 0.913 | |||
day_training | 3 (1.8%) | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
full_time | 21 (13%) | 11 (13%) | 10 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 15 (9.2%) | 7 (8.5%) | 8 (9.9%) | ||
other | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
part_time | 30 (18%) | 15 (18%) | 15 (19%) | ||
retired | 41 (25%) | 20 (24%) | 21 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.3%) | 4 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | ||
student | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
unemploy | 40 (25%) | 22 (27%) | 18 (22%) | ||
marital | 163 | 0.944 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
divore | 18 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.5%) | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
married | 47 (29%) | 23 (28%) | 24 (30%) | ||
none | 81 (50%) | 40 (49%) | 41 (51%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.8%) | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
widow | 9 (5.5%) | 4 (4.9%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
edu | 163 | 0.200 | |||
bachelor | 38 (23%) | 14 (17%) | 24 (30%) | ||
diploma | 31 (19%) | 21 (26%) | 10 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (3.1%) | 4 (4.9%) | 1 (1.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 14 (8.6%) | 7 (8.5%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
primary | 11 (6.7%) | 4 (4.9%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 18 (11%) | 10 (12%) | 8 (9.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 38 (23%) | 19 (23%) | 19 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 8 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
fam_income | 163 | 0.794 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.7%) | 2 (2.4%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
12001_14000 | 8 (4.9%) | 4 (4.9%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.9%) | 3 (3.7%) | 5 (6.2%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.5%) | 2 (2.4%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.9%) | 6 (7.3%) | 2 (2.5%) | ||
20001_above | 30 (18%) | 17 (21%) | 13 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 22 (13%) | 13 (16%) | 9 (11%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (12%) | 7 (8.5%) | 12 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 14 (8.6%) | 8 (9.8%) | 6 (7.4%) | ||
8001_10000 | 13 (8.0%) | 6 (7.3%) | 7 (8.6%) | ||
below_2000 | 31 (19%) | 14 (17%) | 17 (21%) | ||
medication | 163 | 145 (89%) | 73 (89%) | 72 (89%) | 0.978 |
onset_duration | 160 | 15.50 ± 10.48 (0 - 56) | 15.86 ± 11.32 (0 - 56) | 15.12 ± 9.58 (0 - 35) | 0.653 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 158 | 35.69 ± 13.69 (10 - 65) | 34.97 ± 12.36 (10 - 61) | 36.43 ± 14.97 (14 - 65) | 0.505 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1631 | control, N = 821 | treatment, N = 811 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 163 | 3.17 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.15 (1 - 5) | 0.701 |
recovery_stage_b | 163 | 17.94 ± 2.75 (8 - 24) | 17.90 ± 2.91 (8 - 24) | 17.99 ± 2.59 (13 - 24) | 0.844 |
ras_confidence | 163 | 29.89 ± 5.27 (14 - 45) | 29.45 ± 5.12 (14 - 40) | 30.33 ± 5.42 (18 - 45) | 0.287 |
ras_willingness | 163 | 11.82 ± 2.03 (5 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.05 (5 - 15) | 11.94 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.447 |
ras_goal | 163 | 17.41 ± 3.15 (7 - 25) | 17.16 ± 3.06 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.23 (11 - 25) | 0.304 |
ras_reliance | 163 | 13.26 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 13.05 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 13.47 ± 3.03 (7 - 20) | 0.364 |
ras_domination | 163 | 9.82 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 9.98 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 0.416 |
symptom | 163 | 29.76 ± 9.00 (14 - 56) | 29.83 ± 9.27 (14 - 55) | 29.69 ± 8.77 (15 - 56) | 0.922 |
slof_work | 163 | 22.42 ± 4.83 (10 - 30) | 22.61 ± 4.43 (12 - 30) | 22.23 ± 5.22 (10 - 30) | 0.621 |
slof_relationship | 163 | 25.28 ± 5.90 (9 - 35) | 24.77 ± 5.92 (9 - 35) | 25.80 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.265 |
satisfaction | 163 | 20.50 ± 7.23 (5 - 35) | 19.62 ± 7.10 (5 - 33) | 21.38 ± 7.29 (5 - 35) | 0.120 |
mhc_emotional | 163 | 10.83 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.52 ± 3.76 (3 - 17) | 11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.308 |
mhc_social | 163 | 15.13 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 14.94 ± 5.62 (5 - 30) | 15.33 ± 5.55 (5 - 29) | 0.653 |
mhc_psychological | 163 | 21.86 ± 6.40 (6 - 36) | 21.59 ± 6.28 (7 - 36) | 22.14 ± 6.55 (6 - 36) | 0.585 |
resilisnce | 163 | 16.48 ± 4.63 (6 - 30) | 15.96 ± 4.17 (6 - 24) | 17.01 ± 5.02 (6 - 30) | 0.149 |
social_provision | 163 | 13.50 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 13.09 ± 2.71 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.06 (5 - 20) | 0.069 |
els_value_living | 163 | 16.98 ± 3.20 (5 - 25) | 16.62 ± 3.07 (6 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.29 (5 - 25) | 0.149 |
els_life_fulfill | 163 | 12.75 ± 3.42 (4 - 20) | 12.23 ± 3.37 (5 - 19) | 13.27 ± 3.40 (4 - 20) | 0.052 |
els | 163 | 29.73 ± 6.05 (9 - 45) | 28.85 ± 5.84 (11 - 39) | 30.62 ± 6.16 (9 - 45) | 0.062 |
social_connect | 163 | 26.47 ± 9.26 (8 - 48) | 26.84 ± 8.90 (8 - 48) | 26.09 ± 9.65 (8 - 48) | 0.604 |
shs_agency | 163 | 14.30 ± 5.16 (3 - 24) | 13.72 ± 4.84 (3 - 21) | 14.89 ± 5.43 (3 - 24) | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | 163 | 16.02 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 15.46 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 16.58 ± 4.13 (4 - 24) | 0.088 |
shs | 163 | 30.32 ± 8.95 (6 - 48) | 29.18 ± 8.67 (6 - 45) | 31.47 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.103 |
esteem | 163 | 12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 20) | 12.59 ± 1.64 (9 - 18) | 12.60 ± 1.59 (10 - 20) | 0.938 |
mlq_search | 163 | 14.82 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 14.48 ± 3.57 (4 - 21) | 15.17 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.215 |
mlq_presence | 163 | 13.39 ± 4.37 (3 - 21) | 13.11 ± 4.12 (3 - 21) | 13.68 ± 4.61 (3 - 21) | 0.407 |
mlq | 163 | 28.21 ± 7.08 (6 - 42) | 27.59 ± 6.70 (7 - 40) | 28.85 ± 7.42 (6 - 42) | 0.254 |
empower | 163 | 19.22 ± 4.30 (6 - 30) | 18.74 ± 4.24 (9 - 30) | 19.70 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 0.155 |
ismi_resistance | 163 | 14.45 ± 2.58 (5 - 20) | 14.41 ± 2.37 (6 - 20) | 14.49 ± 2.79 (5 - 20) | 0.845 |
ismi_discrimation | 163 | 11.71 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.91 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 11.49 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.380 |
sss_affective | 163 | 10.12 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 10.07 ± 3.52 (3 - 18) | 10.16 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 0.876 |
sss_behavior | 163 | 9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 9.93 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.72 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 0.718 |
sss_cognitive | 163 | 8.33 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.28 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 8.38 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.860 |
sss | 163 | 28.27 ± 10.16 (9 - 54) | 28.28 ± 10.05 (9 - 54) | 28.26 ± 10.33 (9 - 54) | 0.989 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.130 | 2.95, 3.46 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.184 | -0.432, 0.289 | 0.698 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.145 | 0.196 | -0.239, 0.528 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.329 | 0.283 | -0.226, 0.884 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.312 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.085 | 0.442 | -0.781, 0.951 | 0.847 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.252 | 0.423 | -1.08, 0.577 | 0.552 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.774 | 0.613 | -0.427, 1.98 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.5 | 0.579 | 28.3, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.882 | 0.822 | -0.729, 2.49 | 0.285 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.24 | 0.593 | 0.074, 2.40 | 0.040 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.537 | 0.861 | -1.15, 2.22 | 0.534 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.224 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.243 | 0.317 | -0.378, 0.865 | 0.444 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.219 | 0.240 | -0.689, 0.252 | 0.365 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.454 | 0.348 | -0.228, 1.14 | 0.196 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.351 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.508 | 0.498 | -0.468, 1.48 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.288 | 0.419 | -0.535, 1.11 | 0.495 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.484 | 0.608 | -0.708, 1.68 | 0.428 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.325 | 12.4, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.420 | 0.462 | -0.485, 1.33 | 0.364 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.401 | 0.360 | -0.305, 1.11 | 0.269 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.462 | 0.522 | -0.561, 1.49 | 0.378 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.98 | 0.260 | 9.47, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.309 | 0.369 | -1.03, 0.414 | 0.403 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.068 | 0.334 | -0.722, 0.586 | 0.839 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.13 | 0.484 | 0.183, 2.08 | 0.022 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.988 | 27.9, 31.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.138 | 1.402 | -2.89, 2.61 | 0.922 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.02 | 0.878 | -2.74, 0.696 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.687 | 1.274 | -3.18, 1.81 | 0.591 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 0.532 | 21.6, 23.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.375 | 0.755 | -1.85, 1.10 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.170 | 0.552 | -1.25, 0.911 | 0.758 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.486 | 0.800 | -1.08, 2.05 | 0.545 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.8 | 0.645 | 23.5, 26.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.915 | -0.758, 2.83 | 0.260 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.438 | 0.689 | -1.79, 0.913 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.653 | 0.999 | -1.31, 2.61 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.798 | 18.1, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.76 | 1.132 | -0.458, 3.98 | 0.122 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.772 | 0.778 | -0.753, 2.30 | 0.324 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.664 | 1.129 | -1.55, 2.88 | 0.558 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.417 | 9.71, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.611 | 0.592 | -0.549, 1.77 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.469 | 0.401 | -0.317, 1.26 | 0.246 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.329 | 0.582 | -1.47, 0.812 | 0.573 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.637 | 13.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.394 | 0.903 | -1.38, 2.17 | 0.663 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.831 | 0.696 | -0.532, 2.19 | 0.236 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.112 | 1.009 | -2.09, 1.87 | 0.912 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.726 | 20.2, 23.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.550 | 1.029 | -1.47, 2.57 | 0.593 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.774 | -0.505, 2.53 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.174 | 1.122 | -2.37, 2.03 | 0.877 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.499 | 15.0, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.708 | -0.340, 2.44 | 0.140 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.694 | 0.570 | -0.422, 1.81 | 0.226 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 0.826 | -0.463, 2.77 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.319 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.828 | 0.453 | -0.060, 1.72 | 0.069 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.469 | 0.361 | -1.18, 0.239 | 0.197 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.734 | 0.524 | -0.293, 1.76 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.355 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.724 | 0.503 | -0.263, 1.71 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.305 | 0.381 | -0.441, 1.05 | 0.425 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.191 | 0.552 | -0.891, 1.27 | 0.730 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.368 | 11.5, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.521 | 0.018, 2.06 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.515 | 0.349 | -0.169, 1.20 | 0.144 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.136 | 0.506 | -1.13, 0.857 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.664 | 27.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.76 | 0.943 | -0.084, 3.61 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.847 | 0.605 | -0.339, 2.03 | 0.165 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.041 | 0.879 | -1.76, 1.68 | 0.963 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.8 | 1.033 | 24.8, 28.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.755 | 1.466 | -3.63, 2.12 | 0.607 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.021 | 0.972 | -1.93, 1.88 | 0.983 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.73 | 1.410 | -5.49, 0.033 | 0.056 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.564 | 12.6, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 0.799 | -0.398, 2.74 | 0.145 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.209 | 0.524 | -0.817, 1.24 | 0.690 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.625 | 0.760 | -0.865, 2.11 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.5 | 0.450 | 14.6, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.12 | 0.638 | -0.134, 2.37 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.528 | 0.429 | -0.312, 1.37 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.267 | 0.622 | -1.49, 0.952 | 0.669 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.968 | 27.3, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.29 | 1.373 | -0.404, 4.98 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.728 | 0.878 | -0.992, 2.45 | 0.409 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.343 | 1.273 | -2.15, 2.84 | 0.788 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.166 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.020 | 0.236 | -0.443, 0.482 | 0.934 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.052 | 0.265 | -0.571, 0.467 | 0.845 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.157 | 0.383 | -0.593, 0.907 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.391 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.697 | 0.555 | -0.390, 1.78 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.712 | 0.460 | -0.190, 1.61 | 0.125 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.776 | 0.667 | -2.08, 0.530 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.476 | 12.2, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.569 | 0.675 | -0.754, 1.89 | 0.400 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.660 | 0.501 | -0.323, 1.64 | 0.192 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.120 | 0.727 | -1.54, 1.31 | 0.870 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.778 | 26.1, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 1.104 | -0.897, 3.43 | 0.253 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.36 | 0.838 | -0.286, 3.00 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.868 | 1.215 | -3.25, 1.51 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.471 | 17.8, 19.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.960 | 0.668 | -0.349, 2.27 | 0.152 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.948 | 0.475 | 0.018, 1.88 | 0.049 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 0.689 | -2.47, 0.225 | 0.106 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.278 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.079 | 0.394 | -0.693, 0.852 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.006 | 0.352 | -0.697, 0.684 | 0.985 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.677 | 0.510 | -0.323, 1.68 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.346 | 11.2, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.421 | 0.490 | -1.38, 0.540 | 0.392 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.169 | 0.440 | -1.03, 0.693 | 0.701 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.465 | 0.637 | -1.71, 0.784 | 0.467 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.393 | 9.30, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.087 | 0.557 | -1.00, 1.18 | 0.876 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.011 | 0.399 | -0.771, 0.792 | 0.979 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.578 | -2.31, -0.045 | 0.045 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.93 | 0.405 | 9.13, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.211 | 0.575 | -1.34, 0.916 | 0.714 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.201 | 0.406 | -0.996, 0.594 | 0.621 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.503 | 0.588 | -1.66, 0.650 | 0.395 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.28 | 0.402 | 7.49, 9.07 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.102 | 0.570 | -1.01, 1.22 | 0.858 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.060 | 0.442 | -0.808, 0.927 | 0.893 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 0.642 | -2.29, 0.227 | 0.112 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.114 | 26.1, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.021 | 1.580 | -3.12, 3.08 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.218 | 1.040 | -2.26, 1.82 | 0.834 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.48 | 1.509 | -5.44, 0.480 | 0.104 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.46], t(233) = 24.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.29], t(233) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.53], t(233) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.88], t(233) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.29, 18.51], t(233) = 57.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.95], t(233) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.58], t(233) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.98], t(233) = 1.26, p = 0.206; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.45 (95% CI [28.32, 30.59], t(233) = 50.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.49], t(233) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [0.07, 2.40], t(233) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.01, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.22], t(233) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.26, 12.13], t(233) = 52.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86], t(233) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25], t(233) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.14], t(233) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.47, 17.85], t(233) = 48.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.48], t(233) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.11], t(233) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.68], t(233) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.05 (95% CI [12.41, 13.69], t(233) = 40.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.33], t(233) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.11], t(233) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.49], t(233) = 0.89, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.47, 10.49], t(233) = 38.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.41], t(233) = -0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(233) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.18, 2.08], t(233) = 2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.08, 0.89])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.89, 31.77], t(233) = 30.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.61], t(233) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.74, 0.70], t(233) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.81], t(233) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.61 (95% CI [21.57, 23.65], t(233) = 42.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.10], t(233) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.91], t(233) = -0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.05], t(233) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.77 (95% CI [23.50, 26.03], t(233) = 38.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.83], t(233) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.91], t(233) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.61], t(233) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.62 (95% CI [18.06, 21.19], t(233) = 24.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.46, 3.98], t(233) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.30], t(233) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.88], t(233) = 0.59, p = 0.557; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.71, 11.34], t(233) = 25.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.77], t(233) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.26], t(233) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.81], t(233) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.69, 16.19], t(233) = 23.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.17], t(233) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.19], t(233) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.87], t(233) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.59 (95% CI [20.16, 23.01], t(233) = 29.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.57], t(233) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.53], t(233) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.37, 2.03], t(233) = -0.15, p = 0.877; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.98, 16.94], t(233) = 31.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.44], t(233) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.81], t(233) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.77], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.46, 13.71], t(233) = 40.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.72], t(233) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.24], t(233) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.76], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.93, 17.32], t(233) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.71], t(233) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.05], t(233) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.27], t(233) = 0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.51, 12.95], t(233) = 33.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.02, 2.06], t(233) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [5.43e-03, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.20], t(233) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.86], t(233) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.85 (95% CI [27.55, 30.16], t(233) = 43.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.61], t(233) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.03], t(233) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.68], t(233) = -0.05, p = 0.963; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.84 (95% CI [24.82, 28.87], t(233) = 25.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.12], t(233) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.88], t(233) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -2.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.73, 95% CI [-5.49, 0.03], t(233) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 3.46e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.61, 14.82], t(233) = 24.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.74], t(233) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.24], t(233) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.11], t(233) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.46 (95% CI [14.58, 16.35], t(233) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.37], t(233) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.37], t(233) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.95], t(233) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.18 (95% CI [27.29, 31.08], t(233) = 30.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.29, 95% CI [-0.40, 4.98], t(233) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.45], t(233) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.84], t(233) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.59 (95% CI [12.26, 12.91], t(233) = 75.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.48], t(233) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.47], t(233) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.91], t(233) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.71, 15.24], t(233) = 37.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.78], t(233) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.61], t(233) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.53], t(233) = -1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.18, 14.04], t(233) = 27.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.89], t(233) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.64], t(233) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.31], t(233) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.59 (95% CI [26.06, 29.11], t(233) = 35.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.90, 3.43], t(233) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.00], t(233) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.51], t(233) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.74 (95% CI [17.82, 19.67], t(233) = 39.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.27], t(233) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.02, 1.88], t(233) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [4.25e-03, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.22], t(233) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.96], t(233) = 51.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.85], t(233) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.47e-03, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.68], t(233) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -2.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.68], t(233) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.91 (95% CI [11.24, 12.59], t(233) = 34.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.54], t(233) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.69], t(233) = -0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.78], t(233) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.07 (95% CI [9.30, 10.84], t(233) = 25.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.18], t(233) = 0.16, p = 0.875; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.79], t(233) = 0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = 2.96e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.31, -0.04], t(233) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.93 (95% CI [9.13, 10.72], t(233) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.92], t(233) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.59], t(233) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.65], t(233) = -0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.28 (95% CI [7.49, 9.07], t(233) = 20.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.22], t(233) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.93], t(233) = 0.13, p = 0.893; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.23], t(233) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [26.10, 30.46], t(233) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.08], t(233) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -2.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.82], t(233) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.48, 95% CI [-5.44, 0.48], t(233) = -1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 754.087 | 764.517 | -374.044 | 748.087 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 754.262 | 775.121 | -371.131 | 742.262 | 5.825 | 3 | 0.120 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,158.227 | 1,168.656 | -576.113 | 1,152.227 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,161.949 | 1,182.808 | -574.975 | 1,149.949 | 2.278 | 3 | 0.517 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,429.457 | 1,439.887 | -711.729 | 1,423.457 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,421.888 | 1,442.747 | -704.944 | 1,409.888 | 13.569 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 970.357 | 980.787 | -482.179 | 964.357 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 973.239 | 994.097 | -480.619 | 961.239 | 3.119 | 3 | 0.374 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,202.439 | 1,212.868 | -598.219 | 1,196.439 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,203.130 | 1,223.988 | -595.565 | 1,191.130 | 5.309 | 3 | 0.150 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,158.583 | 1,169.012 | -576.291 | 1,152.583 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,156.830 | 1,177.689 | -572.415 | 1,144.830 | 7.753 | 3 | 0.051 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,071.577 | 1,082.006 | -532.788 | 1,065.577 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,068.683 | 1,089.542 | -528.342 | 1,056.683 | 8.893 | 3 | 0.031 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,655.953 | 1,666.382 | -824.976 | 1,649.953 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,657.166 | 1,678.025 | -822.583 | 1,645.166 | 4.787 | 3 | 0.188 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,377.411 | 1,387.840 | -685.705 | 1,371.411 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,382.889 | 1,403.748 | -685.445 | 1,370.889 | 0.522 | 3 | 0.914 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,475.208 | 1,485.637 | -734.604 | 1,469.208 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,478.821 | 1,499.680 | -733.411 | 1,466.821 | 2.387 | 3 | 0.496 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,569.287 | 1,579.717 | -781.644 | 1,563.287 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,568.193 | 1,589.052 | -778.097 | 1,556.193 | 7.094 | 3 | 0.069 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,252.564 | 1,262.993 | -623.282 | 1,246.564 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,256.226 | 1,277.085 | -622.113 | 1,244.226 | 2.337 | 3 | 0.505 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,472.508 | 1,482.937 | -733.254 | 1,466.508 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,475.933 | 1,496.792 | -731.967 | 1,463.933 | 2.575 | 3 | 0.462 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,532.067 | 1,542.496 | -763.033 | 1,526.067 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,535.028 | 1,555.887 | -761.514 | 1,523.028 | 3.039 | 3 | 0.386 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,374.063 | 1,384.492 | -684.031 | 1,368.063 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,365.524 | 1,386.383 | -676.762 | 1,353.524 | 14.538 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,152.558 | 1,162.988 | -573.279 | 1,146.558 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,150.872 | 1,171.731 | -569.436 | 1,138.872 | 7.686 | 3 | 0.053 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,192.687 | 1,203.116 | -593.343 | 1,186.687 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,193.993 | 1,214.852 | -590.997 | 1,181.993 | 4.694 | 3 | 0.196 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,194.945 | 1,205.375 | -594.473 | 1,188.945 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,193.798 | 1,214.657 | -590.899 | 1,181.798 | 7.147 | 3 | 0.067 |
els | null | 3 | 1,472.150 | 1,482.579 | -733.075 | 1,466.150 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,470.990 | 1,491.849 | -729.495 | 1,458.990 | 7.159 | 3 | 0.067 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,688.711 | 1,699.140 | -841.355 | 1,682.711 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,686.549 | 1,707.408 | -837.274 | 1,674.549 | 8.162 | 3 | 0.043 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,394.454 | 1,404.884 | -694.227 | 1,388.454 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,395.118 | 1,415.977 | -691.559 | 1,383.118 | 5.336 | 3 | 0.149 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,289.599 | 1,300.029 | -641.800 | 1,283.599 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,290.900 | 1,311.759 | -639.450 | 1,278.900 | 4.699 | 3 | 0.195 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,649.186 | 1,659.616 | -821.593 | 1,643.186 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,650.034 | 1,670.893 | -819.017 | 1,638.034 | 5.152 | 3 | 0.161 |
esteem | null | 3 | 872.336 | 882.766 | -433.168 | 866.336 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 878.055 | 898.913 | -433.027 | 866.055 | 0.282 | 3 | 0.963 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,249.941 | 1,260.371 | -621.971 | 1,243.941 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,252.632 | 1,273.491 | -620.316 | 1,240.632 | 3.309 | 3 | 0.346 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,329.232 | 1,339.661 | -661.616 | 1,323.232 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,331.757 | 1,352.616 | -659.879 | 1,319.757 | 3.474 | 3 | 0.324 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,567.651 | 1,578.080 | -780.825 | 1,561.651 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,569.752 | 1,590.611 | -778.876 | 1,557.752 | 3.899 | 3 | 0.273 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,319.602 | 1,330.032 | -656.801 | 1,313.602 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,320.394 | 1,341.253 | -654.197 | 1,308.394 | 5.208 | 3 | 0.157 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,096.598 | 1,107.028 | -545.299 | 1,090.598 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,098.832 | 1,119.691 | -543.416 | 1,086.832 | 3.766 | 3 | 0.288 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,201.085 | 1,211.515 | -597.543 | 1,195.085 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,203.760 | 1,224.618 | -595.880 | 1,191.760 | 3.326 | 3 | 0.344 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,236.646 | 1,247.075 | -615.323 | 1,230.646 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,234.748 | 1,255.607 | -611.374 | 1,222.748 | 7.898 | 3 | 0.048 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,245.281 | 1,255.710 | -619.640 | 1,239.281 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,247.924 | 1,268.783 | -617.962 | 1,235.924 | 3.357 | 3 | 0.340 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,255.170 | 1,265.599 | -624.585 | 1,249.170 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,256.669 | 1,277.528 | -622.335 | 1,244.669 | 4.501 | 3 | 0.212 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,721.654 | 1,732.083 | -857.827 | 1,715.654 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,721.351 | 1,742.210 | -854.675 | 1,709.351 | 6.303 | 3 | 0.098 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 82 | 3.21 ± 1.17 | 81 | 3.14 ± 1.17 | 0.698 | 0.074 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 40 | 3.35 ± 1.15 | -0.150 | 36 | 3.61 ± 1.15 | -0.493 | 0.329 | -0.268 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 82 | 17.90 ± 2.82 | 81 | 17.99 ± 2.82 | 0.847 | -0.042 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 40 | 17.65 ± 2.66 | 0.124 | 36 | 18.51 ± 2.65 | -0.257 | 0.160 | -0.423 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 82 | 29.45 ± 5.25 | 81 | 30.33 ± 5.25 | 0.285 | -0.320 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 40 | 30.69 ± 4.49 | -0.449 | 36 | 32.11 ± 4.42 | -0.644 | 0.167 | -0.516 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 82 | 11.70 ± 2.02 | 81 | 11.94 ± 2.02 | 0.444 | -0.217 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 40 | 11.48 ± 1.76 | 0.196 | 36 | 12.17 ± 1.74 | -0.211 | 0.084 | -0.624 |
ras_goal | 1st | 82 | 17.16 ± 3.18 | 81 | 17.67 ± 3.18 | 0.309 | -0.257 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 40 | 17.45 ± 2.86 | -0.146 | 36 | 18.44 ± 2.84 | -0.390 | 0.131 | -0.502 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 82 | 13.05 ± 2.95 | 81 | 13.47 ± 2.95 | 0.364 | -0.250 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 40 | 13.45 ± 2.59 | -0.238 | 36 | 14.33 ± 2.55 | -0.513 | 0.136 | -0.525 |
ras_domination | 1st | 82 | 9.98 ± 2.35 | 81 | 9.67 ± 2.35 | 0.403 | 0.194 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 40 | 9.91 ± 2.18 | 0.043 | 36 | 10.73 ± 2.16 | -0.669 | 0.100 | -0.517 |
symptom | 1st | 82 | 29.83 ± 8.95 | 81 | 29.69 ± 8.95 | 0.922 | 0.034 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 40 | 28.81 ± 7.36 | 0.254 | 36 | 27.98 ± 7.21 | 0.424 | 0.622 | 0.205 |
slof_work | 1st | 82 | 22.61 ± 4.82 | 81 | 22.23 ± 4.82 | 0.620 | 0.146 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 40 | 22.44 ± 4.14 | 0.066 | 36 | 22.55 ± 4.08 | -0.123 | 0.906 | -0.043 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 82 | 24.77 ± 5.84 | 81 | 25.80 ± 5.84 | 0.260 | -0.322 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 40 | 24.33 ± 5.07 | 0.136 | 36 | 26.02 ± 5.00 | -0.067 | 0.146 | -0.526 |
satisfaction | 1st | 82 | 19.62 ± 7.23 | 81 | 21.38 ± 7.23 | 0.122 | -0.490 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 40 | 20.39 ± 6.10 | -0.215 | 36 | 22.82 ± 5.99 | -0.399 | 0.082 | -0.674 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 82 | 10.52 ± 3.78 | 81 | 11.14 ± 3.78 | 0.303 | -0.330 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 40 | 10.99 ± 3.18 | -0.253 | 36 | 11.28 ± 3.12 | -0.076 | 0.697 | -0.152 |
mhc_social | 1st | 82 | 14.94 ± 5.77 | 81 | 15.33 ± 5.77 | 0.663 | -0.122 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 40 | 15.77 ± 5.04 | -0.256 | 36 | 16.05 ± 4.98 | -0.222 | 0.806 | -0.087 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 82 | 21.59 ± 6.57 | 81 | 22.14 ± 6.57 | 0.593 | -0.153 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 40 | 22.60 ± 5.70 | -0.281 | 36 | 22.97 ± 5.62 | -0.232 | 0.772 | -0.104 |
resilisnce | 1st | 82 | 15.96 ± 4.52 | 81 | 17.01 ± 4.52 | 0.140 | -0.393 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 40 | 16.66 ± 4.01 | -0.260 | 36 | 18.86 ± 3.96 | -0.693 | 0.017 | -0.826 |
social_provision | 1st | 82 | 13.09 ± 2.89 | 81 | 13.91 ± 2.89 | 0.069 | -0.489 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 40 | 12.62 ± 2.56 | 0.277 | 36 | 14.18 ± 2.53 | -0.156 | 0.008 | -0.923 |
els_value_living | 1st | 82 | 16.62 ± 3.21 | 81 | 17.35 ± 3.21 | 0.152 | -0.408 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 40 | 16.93 ± 2.79 | -0.172 | 36 | 17.84 ± 2.75 | -0.280 | 0.152 | -0.516 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 82 | 12.23 ± 3.33 | 81 | 13.27 ± 3.33 | 0.048 | -0.646 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 40 | 12.75 ± 2.79 | -0.320 | 36 | 13.65 ± 2.74 | -0.236 | 0.155 | -0.562 |
els | 1st | 82 | 28.85 ± 6.02 | 81 | 30.62 ± 6.02 | 0.063 | -0.633 | ||
els | 2nd | 40 | 29.70 ± 4.98 | -0.304 | 36 | 31.42 ± 4.88 | -0.289 | 0.130 | -0.618 |
social_connect | 1st | 82 | 26.84 ± 9.36 | 81 | 26.09 ± 9.36 | 0.607 | 0.169 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 40 | 26.82 ± 7.81 | 0.005 | 36 | 23.33 ± 7.67 | 0.614 | 0.051 | 0.778 |
shs_agency | 1st | 82 | 13.72 ± 5.10 | 81 | 14.89 ± 5.10 | 0.145 | -0.485 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 40 | 13.93 ± 4.25 | -0.087 | 36 | 15.72 ± 4.17 | -0.346 | 0.065 | -0.743 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 82 | 15.46 ± 4.07 | 81 | 16.58 ± 4.07 | 0.082 | -0.565 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 40 | 15.99 ± 3.42 | -0.267 | 36 | 16.84 ± 3.35 | -0.132 | 0.275 | -0.430 |
shs | 1st | 82 | 29.18 ± 8.76 | 81 | 31.47 ± 8.76 | 0.098 | -0.566 | ||
shs | 2nd | 40 | 29.91 ± 7.25 | -0.180 | 36 | 32.54 ± 7.10 | -0.265 | 0.112 | -0.652 |
esteem | 1st | 82 | 12.59 ± 1.51 | 81 | 12.60 ± 1.51 | 0.934 | -0.015 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 40 | 12.53 ± 1.50 | 0.039 | 36 | 12.71 ± 1.49 | -0.079 | 0.608 | -0.134 |
mlq_search | 1st | 82 | 14.48 ± 3.54 | 81 | 15.17 ± 3.54 | 0.210 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 40 | 15.19 ± 3.17 | -0.329 | 36 | 15.11 ± 3.14 | 0.030 | 0.913 | 0.037 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 82 | 13.11 ± 4.31 | 81 | 13.68 ± 4.31 | 0.400 | -0.244 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 40 | 13.77 ± 3.72 | -0.283 | 36 | 14.22 ± 3.67 | -0.232 | 0.597 | -0.193 |
mlq | 1st | 82 | 27.59 ± 7.05 | 81 | 28.85 ± 7.05 | 0.253 | -0.324 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 40 | 28.94 ± 6.13 | -0.347 | 36 | 29.34 ± 6.05 | -0.125 | 0.776 | -0.102 |
empower | 1st | 82 | 18.74 ± 4.26 | 81 | 19.70 ± 4.26 | 0.152 | -0.436 | ||
empower | 2nd | 40 | 19.69 ± 3.63 | -0.431 | 36 | 19.53 ± 3.57 | 0.080 | 0.842 | 0.075 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 82 | 14.41 ± 2.52 | 81 | 14.49 ± 2.52 | 0.841 | -0.047 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 40 | 14.41 ± 2.31 | 0.004 | 36 | 15.16 ± 2.30 | -0.401 | 0.155 | -0.452 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 82 | 11.91 ± 3.13 | 81 | 11.49 ± 3.13 | 0.392 | 0.201 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 40 | 11.75 ± 2.88 | 0.081 | 36 | 10.86 ± 2.86 | 0.304 | 0.181 | 0.424 |
sss_affective | 1st | 82 | 10.07 ± 3.56 | 81 | 10.16 ± 3.56 | 0.876 | -0.047 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 40 | 10.08 ± 3.04 | -0.006 | 36 | 8.99 ± 2.99 | 0.632 | 0.116 | 0.590 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 82 | 9.93 ± 3.67 | 81 | 9.72 ± 3.67 | 0.714 | 0.112 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 40 | 9.73 ± 3.12 | 0.107 | 36 | 9.01 ± 3.07 | 0.375 | 0.316 | 0.380 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 82 | 8.28 ± 3.64 | 81 | 8.38 ± 3.64 | 0.858 | -0.049 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 40 | 8.34 ± 3.19 | -0.029 | 36 | 7.41 ± 3.15 | 0.470 | 0.203 | 0.450 |
sss | 1st | 82 | 28.28 ± 10.08 | 81 | 28.26 ± 10.08 | 0.989 | 0.004 | ||
sss | 2nd | 40 | 28.06 ± 8.41 | 0.046 | 36 | 25.56 ± 8.25 | 0.563 | 0.192 | 0.522 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(220.59) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.29)
2st
t(229.45) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.78)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(207.19) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.96)
2st
t(227.65) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.06)
ras_confidence
1st
t(184.04) = 1.07, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.50)
2st
t(234.03) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.44)
ras_willingness
1st
t(186.81) = 0.77, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.87)
2st
t(232.95) = 1.74, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.49)
ras_goal
1st
t(194.54) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.49)
2st
t(229.89) = 1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.28)
ras_reliance
1st
t(188.74) = 0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.33)
2st
t(232.13) = 1.49, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.05)
ras_domination
1st
t(201.16) = -0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.42)
2st
t(228.20) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.80)
symptom
1st
t(177.51) = -0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.63)
2st
t(234.71) = -0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.12 to 2.47)
slof_work
1st
t(184.73) = -0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.11)
2st
t(233.78) = 0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.97)
slof_relationship
1st
t(186.51) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.84)
2st
t(233.07) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.96)
satisfaction
1st
t(181.49) = 1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.99)
2st
t(234.77) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.31 to 5.16)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(180.84) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.78)
2st
t(234.89) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.71)
mhc_social
1st
t(187.89) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.18)
2st
t(232.50) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.55)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(186.40) = 0.53, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.58)
2st
t(233.12) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.94)
resilisnce
1st
t(190.87) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.45)
2st
t(231.25) = 2.41, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.40 to 4.01)
social_provision
1st
t(190.29) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.72)
2st
t(231.49) = 2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.71)
els_value_living
1st
t(186.76) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.72)
2st
t(232.97) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.17)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(180.27) = 1.99, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.07)
2st
t(234.96) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.15)
els
1st
t(178.50) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.62)
2st
t(234.94) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.95)
social_connect
1st
t(179.84) = -0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.14)
2st
t(234.99) = -1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-6.99 to 0.02)
shs_agency
1st
t(179.34) = 1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.75)
2st
t(235.00) = 1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.70)
shs_pathway
1st
t(180.41) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.38)
2st
t(234.95) = 1.09, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.38)
shs
1st
t(178.32) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.42 to 5.00)
2st
t(234.91) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.88)
esteem
1st
t(227.56) = 0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.48)
2st
t(231.74) = 0.51, p = 0.608, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.85)
mlq_search
1st
t(193.25) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.79)
2st
t(230.34) = -0.11, p = 0.913, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st
t(185.65) = 0.84, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.90)
2st
t(233.42) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.22 to 2.12)
mlq
1st
t(186.98) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.44)
2st
t(232.88) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.15)
empower
1st
t(183.21) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.28)
2st
t(234.31) = -0.20, p = 0.842, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.47)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(199.85) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.86)
2st
t(228.45) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.80)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(200.23) = -0.86, p = 0.392, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.55)
2st
t(228.37) = -1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.41)
sss_affective
1st
t(183.58) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.19)
2st
t(234.19) = -1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.27)
sss_behavior
1st
t(182.78) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.92)
2st
t(234.45) = -1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.69)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(188.46) = 0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.23)
2st
t(232.25) = -1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.36 to 0.50)
sss
1st
t(179.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.14 to 3.10)
2st
t(235.00) = -1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-6.27 to 1.27)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(116.40) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 0.88)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(103.93) = 1.17, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.40)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(87.56) = 2.84, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.02)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(89.33) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.74)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(94.49) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.65)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(90.58) = 2.28, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.62)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(99.24) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.76)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(83.53) = -1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.55 to 0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(88.00) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.47)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(89.13) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.66)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(85.97) = 1.75, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(85.57) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(90.03) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.17)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(89.06) = 1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.46)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(91.99) = 3.08, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(91.61) = 0.69, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.02)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(89.29) = 1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.29)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(85.21) = 1.03, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.11)
els
1st vs 2st
t(84.13) = 1.26, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.07)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(84.95) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(84.64) = 1.51, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.93)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(85.30) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(84.02) = 1.16, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.91)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(125.19) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(93.60) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.90)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(88.58) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.59)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(89.44) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.24)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(87.04) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.82)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(98.27) = 1.81, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.41)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(98.55) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(87.27) = -2.78, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.33)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(86.77) = -1.65, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.14)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(90.40) = -2.08, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to -0.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(84.76) = -2.46, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.52)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(112.34) = 0.74, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.53)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(101.17) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.59)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(86.40) = 2.08, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.42)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(88.00) = -0.91, p = 0.732, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.26)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(92.67) = 0.68, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.12)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(89.14) = 1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(96.95) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.60)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(82.73) = -1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.73)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(86.79) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.93)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(87.83) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(84.95) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.32)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(84.59) = 1.17, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(88.63) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.22)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(87.76) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.55)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(90.42) = 1.22, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.83)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(90.07) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.25)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(87.97) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.06)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(84.27) = 1.47, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.21)
els
1st vs 2st
t(83.28) = 1.40, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.05)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(84.02) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.92)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(83.75) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.25)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(84.35) = 1.23, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.38)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(83.18) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.48)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(120.22) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.48)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(91.87) = 1.54, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.63)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(87.33) = 1.31, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(88.10) = 1.61, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.03)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(85.93) = 1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.89)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(96.08) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.70)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(96.33) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.71)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(86.14) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.81)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(85.68) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.61)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(88.97) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.94)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(83.86) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.85)
Plot
